Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002219 <br /> <br />ARIZONAv. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />45 <br /> <br />IV. <br /> <br />ARIZONA-NEW MEXICO GILA CONTROVERSY. <br /> <br />Arizona and New Mexico presented the Master with <br />conflicting claims to water fn the Gila River, the tributary <br />that rises in New Mexico .and flows through Arizona. <br />Having determined that tributaries are not within the <br />, .' <br />regulatory provisions of the Project Act the Master held <br />that this interstate dispute sh~uld be decided under the <br />principles ,of equitable apportionment. After hearing <br />evidence on this issue, the Maste~ a<)cepted a compromise <br />settlement agreed upon by these States and incorporated <br />that settlement in his findings and co~clusions, and in <br />Part IV (A) (B) (C) (D) of his recommended decree. No <br />exceptions have been filed to these recommendations by <br />any of the parties and they are. accordingly accepted by <br />us: Except for those discussed in Part V, we are not <br />required to decide any other disputes between tributary <br />users or between mainstream and tributary users. <br /> <br />V. <br /> <br />CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES. <br /> <br />In these proceedings, the United States has asserted <br />claims to waters in the main river and in some of the <br />tributaries for use on Indian Reservations, National For- <br />ests, Recreational and Wildlife Areas, and other govern- <br />ment lands and works. While the Master passed upon <br />some of these claims, he declined to reach others, particu- <br />larly those relating to tributaries. We approve his deci- <br />sion as to which claims required adjudi~ation, and likewise <br />we approve the decree he recommended for the govern- <br />ment claims he did decide: We Shall discuss only th:~ <br />claims of the United States on behalf of the Indian <br />Reservations. <br />